This is also for people. Of course the companies that own the ships traveling in that area are profiting from such protection, BUT - once again, the companies are just people, the shareholders, management, employees - those people benefit from the protection from pirates. The company as a juridical person doesn't care.

Another example would be: If I have company and the company and this company generates some profit. As long as I don't withdraw the money from my company, I can not use the money. The company can reinvest the money (before the end of fiscal year) and pay no taxes, or save the money (during the end of fiscal year) and pay the taxes. Even if the state for example by protecting its ships increases its profits, nothing changes, the money is still stuck in my company. If I want to collect my profits, the money will be taxed by income tax, otherwise my company will reinvest the money in some point in the future (inflation is the force causing this and is strong enough).

When I state it as simple as possible, income taxes are just forcing companies to reinvest their profits the same year and don't save anything for future.

It is not in vacuum it is the reality. When I create a company, the company starts to exist. Its money are not my money. When I want to use that money, I have to pay income tax. I'm the one who benefits from the things that society provides. The company does not, the company doesn't care.

I will not repeat this again. If you are going to react to my post, please try to be more specific than "your argument stinks" argument.

Company is abstract construct. Company doesn't care about anything, it is the people that are controlling it. When we say Google did this or that, it means people in Google in the name of the company did this or that. When people in Google decide to destroy it, the company won't fight back. When the company has the money, nobody benefits from that and thus there should be no tax from that money (inflation is good enough).

When talking about income taxes, yes, you are member of the society, you benefit from such things, you should pay taxes. Companies, however, don't benefit from army, from healthcare and from any other things that society provides. In fact, when nobody uses the company, the company ceases to exist. Taxing the companies only forces the companies to spend every year the most so they don't have to pay such high taxes. For me, it is not bad if for example Microsoft holds great untaxed amount of cash this year and invests it the next year or the year after. The company is already punished for not spending their money by inflation, the income tax is just bad tool and shouldn't be used.

I actually don't want to discuss religion under this article, but I have to react.
The statement might be insulting, but I'm quite sure it is true - I'm not trying to be politically correct on Slashdot.
(a) Vast majority of muslims are religious idiots. From pools conducted in muslim countries, non trivial portion of people support terrorism, al-Qaeda, or bin Laden ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Recent_polls ). That are normal people, not a few fundamentalist idiots that would be an exception in muslim society. This actually is just about terrorism and killing people - to call somebody religious idiot, I don't need him to support terrorism, just support for stoning people for adultery ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Support_for_stoning), insulting Quran, apostasy is enough. Even forcing women to wear burqas, forbidding women to drive cars, to divorce husband, are grounds to call them religious idiots (Don't have statistic for that but I suspect it will be much higher percentage than the percentage of people supporting stoning). Even so called secularized muslims seem to be secularized as long as they don't have the majority in society (just an example from a debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r018ohLUuL4&feature=player_detailpage#t=411s). I, based on such data, conclude that vast majority of muslims can be safely called religious idiots. I BY NO MEANS CLAIM, THAT ALL OF THEM ARE, but the portion is great enough.

And as for the contributions from muslims to sicence and culture ... yes they did, what does it have to do with religion and religious idiocy ?

(b) In social studies there can't be any conclusive proof but we have clues. For example statistic about people in prison, atheists are there far less often than religious people: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists . And atheists don't have an imposed twisted sense of morality provided by any abrahamic religion.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible and not stereotypical. If I got the facts wrong please correct me, but I think, that the facts I provided point towards my opinions.

Actually no. I'm quite sure, that in such case Muslims and many other religion guided idiots would claim that the asteroid is God intended punishment and would suicidebomb any attempts to deflect it in order to preserve God's will.

If the hardware would be good enough, mainly the screen with good resolution (FullHD and more) it could be interesting for me. There simply are almost no options for people who want good notebook with high resolution without Windows preinstalled.

I have done a little research and posted information about the policy and the vote on my wall. As far as I know, almost nobody gave a f*ck about it. People just don't care about the policy of facebook as long as they can upload photos and post statuses.

Doubling of processor cores doesn't imply that things can be twice as fast. There is actually pretty hard science going on researching what can be done with N processors to speed up problem solving. It turns out, that even with large numbers of processors we are not able to speed up majority of algorithms in any significant way. Maybe in real world, few additional processors could compute some basic stuff in the meantime to speed things up, but I doubt that doubling the number of processors will add significant speed to computers when the number of them is large enough.

I have to disagree. If you have more than two parties, your government is terribly weakened and cannot make any significant changes. I'm from Czech Republic and our governments haven't been able to make crucial economic changes in 20 years. And even though in 2009 we have elected parties, that had very strong mandate to do something and there was strong will to make such changes, it now seems that they won't be able to make them anyway, because there showed up a bunch of idiots in one party. The result is, that we won't have this important legislature passed for at least 4 years and communist party will be part of the next government.

It may seem, that you are fucked once from democrats and once from republicans, but the alternative is, your government will be incompetent and you'll be fucked anyways. There is simply no other way in democratic system.

I'm from Europe and I'm worried about the pro-religion laws, that are passed all around world. This laws effectively prohibit criticising religion, because such critique could be considered blasphemy. I'm against any organized philosophy, because I think it can be used as a tool to manipulate people, but seeing such laws, I would be happy if there was a scientific religion. Such religion could worship scientific truths (without any ceremonies of course) and it would be blasphemous deny them. Then it would be at least fair that not only bullshit like religion could take advantage of such laws. What do you think about it? Would you propose an alternative to this approach?

2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this. What ? This brainwashing is totally harmless for anyone else ? Are you serious ? These people are because of this middle-age policy almost always fanatic. In Christianity, there are many people who say they are christian, but because they don't attend church too often they can think of themselves without any fanaticism. On the other hand, majority of people, who attend church regularly they are morons, who demonize homosexuals, preach against abortions and other retarded stuff. Brainwashing is simply NOT harmless for everybody else... at least not in democracy.

I'm not from US, but after watching the presidential debate, I'm convinced that Romney is really bad candidate. In the debate, he keep repeating, that he will support teachers, he will cancel Obama care and replace it with something, that will essentially do the same, he will lower tax rates with closing loopholes to have the revenue the same and so on WITHOUT actually saying anything specific. He basically said, that he is able to do everything well again without saying how would he achieve it. Such magic presented in the campaign is only populism and he will not be able to hold his promises. And even if I didn't see this as a problem, I still would see the fact, that he is inconsistent with himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20 Obama on the other hand was quite specific about his plans and his plans seem to be realistic